Proposing the motion for the 8th of February were Emma C and Cliona M. Opposing the motion were Tyra M and Katie M. Emma opened the debate arguing the correlation between poverty and crime. She stated that people who are socially deprived have less opportunities than their more affluent counterparts. She said that those who were socially deprived had less to aspire to and so crime was a means to bettering oneself, in terms of getting money fast. Criminality was normalised and urged the audience to acknowledge the problem and do something about it. On the opposing team, Tyra spoke about the reasons why people turn to crime, noting that lots of wealthy people turn to crime- for more money, the thrill, power trip. She stated that this was a negative stereotype and said it was imperative that we judge the action and not the person. Just because you come from a 'rough area' doesn't mean you're doomed. Proposing the motion, Cliona talked about the importance of parental influence and the normalisation and acceptance of criminality in some areas. She spoke eloquently on the 'herd mentality' and how lack opportunities made young people turn to crime. Once you started on this path, she argued that it was very difficult to get off the path of crime. Opposing the motion, Katie M spoke about crime and what she called the 'big crimes' which she argued were perpetrated by all kinds of people with all different kinds of backgrounds. She spoke about tax evasion by the likes of Donal Trump and white collar crime. She talked about negative stereotypes and how some people doom themselves because of other people's attitudes of where they live. She talked about the importance of freedom and the freedom of choice and how ultimately people make their own choices. You can't blame it on geography!
Winners of today's debate were the proposition.
Best speaker for today: Tyra
Well done girls.
Very early on Saturday morning the 4th of February BCS' junior debating and public speaking team headed for the big city of Dublin to participate in the DUGWA's public speaking for girls in Trinity College Dublin. Competing also in the competition were St. Joseph's Secondary School, Rush, Co. Dublin, Welsey College, Dublin, Loreto College, St. Stephen's Green, Assumption Secondary School, Walkinstown, Dublin, St. Mark's Secondary School, Dublin, St Joseph's Secondary School, Clonee, Dublin. Each member of the BCS team had chosen two of the six prescribed topics and had researched and had some preparatory work done on these topics. On the day, the girls were given an aspect of one of their chosen topics and had 20 minutes to prepare and deliver a speech in the Synge lecture hall in Trinity. One of Tyra's topics was the topic of the environment and she was asked to speak on how 'Green energy is best'. One of Katie's selected topics was the topic of modern living and technology and she was asked to speak on how 'Online bullying is the greatest threat facing young people'. One of Emma's topics was the topic of leisure and on the day she was asked to speak on the aspect of' Society places too much emphasis on work. What was leisure time?' The overall winners of the competition were Assumption Secondary School, Walkinstown, Dublin. However, Bailieborough Community School also enjoyed great success with our very own Emma Clarke being named the best speaker. Emma will now represent Trinity College Dublin in the Irish Federation of Universities Public Speaking Competition on the 11th of March in Trinity. Well done to all the girls. They were a credit to their school.
On a frosty Saturday morning at 7: 30 am, some very sleep-deprived BCS students left the glistening beauty of the school grounds and headed for Castleknock Community School to participate in the Mace Matheson debates. In total, 72 teams took part in the Leinster final. Bailieborough had 3 teams taking part in the Castleknock Mace Matheson debates.There was lots of lively debate, lots of fun was had and lots of pizza consumed. A good day was held by all. Emma Clarke was listed among the top ten speakers overall in the final tab. Overall, our school teams were awarded fifth place, twenty-sixth and forty-fourth place. Well done to everyone involved.
Round 1: "This house would prioritise people with healthy lifestyles".
Round 2: "This house would allow mothers to raise their children in prison"
Round 3: "This house believes democracy has failed"
Round 4: "This house would allow you to legally use lethal force against home invaders"
Leinster Final: "Presuming there was a tablet that stopped people from falling in love, this house would take the tablet"
The Matheson Mace are delighted to announce that we will be joining forces with the Law Society in University College Dublin to bring you the Inaugural Matheson National Debating Championships.
On the 18th of February we are asking you to send us your best Senior speakers (4th-6th years) to take part in this one day event to determine the country’s top speakers. Judged by Ireland’s most distinguished University Speakers, co-hosted by the Nation’s largest schools debating competition and one of the largest student societies in Europe and sponsored by one of Ireland’s most prestigious law firms, the Matheson National DebatingChampionships is an event not to be missed.
We know interest will be huge so places will be limited. As such we are asking you to register your interest by Friday 16th December. Only schools that have registered their interest by the deadline will be eligible to enter teams.
'This house would make smoking illegal'
This was a bitterly argued debate by both teams involved. Arguments from the proposition were based on the idea that smoking is harmful to one's health, so why should the health service be expected to foot the bill for people who smoke. Emma C mentioned talked about passive smoking and why should our health be affected by someone else's actions. Cliona spoke about the fact that it is the government's job to make laws/rules that protect us, for example, the wearing of seatbelts, not speeding in our cars so it follows on, that we should make smoking illegal because it is harmful. Rian spoke about all the health dangers of smoking and that when we accept something we are normalising it, saying it's ok. From the opposition, Tyra spoke very well on being a democracy and freedom. She spoke about how the government shouldn't be allowed to dictate to people what they should and shouldn't do. Where will it end? she asked. Will the government be allowed to say that you can't get a tatoo, or that you can't eat a certain food because it has a high sugar content. She said that people should be allowed to make their own decisions. She spoke very well about what's happens if smoking does become illegal- are the guards going to arrest someone who is addicted to nicotine. 'Get real' she implored us, and said that the guards, many she felt confident in saying smoked cigarettes themselves. Tyra said we need to focus on real crime and punishing someone for doing something that they're addicted to is not the way forward. Her closing argument focused on the need to offer more support to people who want to give up smoking; the answer is not to put them in jail. Finally for the opposition, Katie argued that people should be allowed to make their own decisions with their body and health. If they want to smoke, so be it. It is not the government's or society's role to pass judgement. She said that when you make something illegal you create the problem of the black market and this in turn leads to more crime. She stated that when you tell young people not to do something, they do it because you are glamourising it and making them into a rebel. They want to appear 'cool'. Both teams made really good arguments but the winning team on the day was the proposition because their team members made effective use of rhetorical questions and imperative verbs. Their presentations were a lot more engaging. Well done Emma, Cliona and Rian.
Today's debate resulted in a draw. The motion being debated was 'Plastic surgery should be banned'. Arguments from the proposition in favour of the motion included the following:
Equally convincing arguments came from the opposition who made the following points: